NBVegita

round it up to 60 miles. If you did 60 miles at 60 mi/h (!@#$%^&*uming no traffic no stopping, basically all highway) it would take you 60 minutes. If you did 60 miles at 70 mi/h (!@#$%^&*uming the same) it would take you 51.43 minutes. If you did 60 miles at mi/h (!@#$%^&*uming the same) it would take you 45 minutes. If you did 60 miles at 90 mi/h (!@#$%^&*uming the same) it would take you 40 minutes. So if you did 1 1/3 times the speed limit, over 60 miles, you're only saving 15 minutes. Which would be negated if you got pulled over for speeding. Even on your extremes, to save 30 minutes over 50 miles, !@#$%^&*uming the speed limit is only 60 mi/h, you would have to drive 150 mi/h the entire trip. To save 40 minutes over 50 miles, you would have to drive at 300 mi/h for the entire trip.

Well the law does, which in this case, is the important thing. Not a big fan of physics eh? Being caught behind a bike actually saves your gas mileage. A bike has just as much right to be there as you do. If you know there is a street where bikers commonly ride, why don't you go around it? A detour on a bike could cost him 10 minutes or more, where as a detour for a car is only likely to delay you a few minutes. Yet again that !@#$%^&* physics things. If you drive fast you are more likely to be in an accident. Not only is your control limited, but your braking and reaction tme both drop. Ultimately no one answered my question: Since when is the speed limit too slow? Just google one of the multiple studies that show you just how little time you save by speeding.

First off I implicitly stated I'm not calling it right or wrong so that we don't go even further off track debating the concept of why we're in Iraq. Second it was not back tracking, it was supporting why, besides the fact that the Iraqi army is our ally, we would help them attack Sadr. Third my statement about Saddam was not to show a parallel, just to show that insurgents are not black and white as Astro was attempting to portray. I'd love to see if you have a single viewpoint that isn't morbidly cataclysmic.

Well unfortunately by law, they have every right to. At least by NYS laws, which I posted because I do seem to remember LOSA saying she was from NY.

Btw Losa: "Bicyclists, in-line skaters, and motor vehicle drivers must all use and obey the same traffic laws. A motorist must recognize that a bicyclist or in-line skater has the same rights as any other motor vehicle driver. Bicyclists and skaters must obey all traffic signals, signs and pavement markings. The bicyclists must use a signal to turn on a roadway, a bike lane or bike path. The bicyclists and skaters who break the law are subject to traffic tickets. Parents are responsible for the violations committed by their children who less than the age of 18." http://www.nysdmv.com/dmvfaqs.htm#bikes "Localities often prohibit bicycling on sidewalks. However, some local ordinances do permit children to bicycle on sidewalks. For your safety and that of pedestrians, however, you should avoid busy city sidewalks whether or not restricted by law." http://www.oginski-law.com/library/bicycle-and-pedestria.cfm As much as you might hate it, they have just as much right to the road as you do. That is !@#$%^&*uming you have bad drivers. If you have patient drivers who are good drivers, no accidents will be caused. A novel idea would also be that if you're worried about getting where to need to be getting on time, leave 5-10 minutes early. On topic: I agree with Inc. We as a country drive terribly already. Since when is doing 65 mph not enough speed? Why is it difficult to do 30mph in residential areas? If anything I wish they would be more strict with the traffic laws. We need to hold people more accountable for their driving habits, not less accountable.

Remember astro, I'm not talking specculation. In an argument about politics, you can't use specculation. In a discussion you can. Your theory is flawed. If every time you killed a people their urge to fight became stronger, how is it that Husein was able to keep peace on the threat of m!@#$%^&* genocide? He killed more iraqi civilians, destroyed more rebel armies and managed to keep a more peaceful country than we have been able to do after 5 years of work. After doing further research, the mahdi army is completely anti-U.S. It only makes sense that the U.S. would now encourage military action, being Sadr himself says he has no plans to negotiate with the U.S. I'm not calling them right or wrong, but when you have a rebel group who will not negotiate, there is only one course of action to take. (Note: By saying Sadr will not negotiate with us does not mean we are not willing to negotiate with them) As I said, you can call just about every statement made publically propaganda. Even stating the truth publically falls under the blanket of propaganda (for the most part).

Sounds like the Iraq is trying to destroy Mahdi with U.S. help. If we wanted to destroy Mahdi, it would be destroyed. Or at least mostly destroyed. As for the propaganda, I thought we had already established that most if not all public statements are a form of propaganda, be it positive or negative. And the way I cut propaganda is that most propaganda is just one person(s) view of the event/activity. It just so happens to be a public opinion. Thats why I hate the use of the word, as you can classify almost every statement made in the news/media/public/military to be propaganda of some sort.

I read the full article. Sharing intelligence and reconnaissance is not what I meant by "!@#$%^&*isting our ally" You're treating the article as if we invaded Sadr ourselves. Newsflash, if our ally is planning an offensive, and our ultimate goal is to train the Iraqi military to be self-sufficient, why in anyone's right mind would we not help them with intelligence/reconnaissance? Just because we gave military intelligence to an ally does not signify that we are not willing to negotiate with the party we gave them intel on. In fact if we refused to give Iraq intel it would be political suicide. We're supposed to be !@#$%^&*isting the Iraqi advancement into a stable military, not dictating what Iraq can and can't do. Ultimately all that article shows is that Iraqi militants wanted to invade Sadr and the USA provided them with helpful information concerning the city. Even prior to this attack, we have no clue what has actually occurred in Sadr. There could have been negotiations recently that went badly. Or a million other things to warrant attacking the city. "Shiite militias began firing rockets at the fortified Green Zone from Sadr City in late March in response to the offensive in Basra." Is just one example. Ultimately Iraq needs to have one united power.

Apologies, it wasn't you who alluded to that. "The long-awaited military operation, which took place without the involvement of American ground forces" "An Iraqi plan to mount an offensive was developed but shelved after negotiations between representatives from the Sadr movement and Shiite politicians led to a cease-fire accord. That agreement permitted Iraqi troops to move throughout Sadr City." Our only involvement: "Late Monday night, the Americans removed slabs in the concrete wall they had erected to cordon the neighborhood, in order that Iraqi forces could p!@#$%^&* through. American M-1 tanks guarded the gaps throughout the rest of the night until the offensive began." "No American ground forces accompanied the Iraqi troops, not even military advisers. But the Americans shared intelligence, coached the Iraqis during the planning and provided overhead reconnaissance throughout the operation. Still, the operation was very much an Iraqi plan." I don't see anywhere in that article where it shows that the U.S. is not willing to negotiate. In fact we didn't even assist Iraq, our only big ally over there, with the offensive. Yes that article is terribly !@#$%^&*ing. [/sarcasm]

First off, your entire concept that Bush wouldn't disagree publicly with Pet is purely your opinion and thus speculation. So being there is no fact backing up your statement, there really is no need to counter the argument further than I already have. Second, the idea that Bush is taking an absolutist stance is yet again your opinion and thus speculation. My spoiler was just to show that the concept of Pet being a "puppet" is yet again just your opinion, and thus again speculation. Ultimately your entire argument against these facts: Pet says we're willing to negotiate. Pet is the commander of the MNSTC. Pet is a high ranking official in the Bush Administration. Pet is the highest ranking official either governmentally and or militarily to make a statement concerning negotiations with Sadr The United States has not contradicted Pet's statements. Is simply your opinion and thus simply speculation.

That it is quite true, but being most often propaganda is lies, as stated by yourself, how do we distinguish the statements to be truthful propaganda or untruthful? Which ultimately comes to the base of your argument with Ace. Ace believes the propaganda by Pet to be truthful, you believe it to be untruthful propaganda.

haha delic that was terribly ironic, a huge event population with no one to host. We went from 0 pop to what 36?

You are playing on less credible premises. You are saying he is !@#$%^&*uming that Petraeus is being honest. Remember in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. I know that doesn't translate well into this, but you don't have any source to say that he's lied so far, so are we to assume that he is simply lying because it would better fit your argument? Or are we !@#$%^&*uming that all public officials lie? Are we !@#$%^&*uming that simply because he is the commander of the U.S. forces he lies? The same could be used for his first premise. Firstly I'm not picking at hairs. If you're going to use an analogy that has a finite conclusion and compare it to an argument that has no discernable conclustion, it is a terrible analogy. Your analogy did not resemble the argument in any way. Actually that would only work if I told you to play with a poisonous snake, !@#$%^&*uring you that I've had its fangs removed. That would infer that all public statements are propaganda, as the same is true for all public statements. If you believe every statement made is propaganda, then I guess you never really know the truth of anything. Which philosophically is correct, as we do never know the truths of most things, but it makes debating impossible. If you can counter every statement made publically with the argument that it is/might be propaganda, there is no point in debating. Using that logic, if Bush started negotiations with Sadr tomorrow, you would still say that Ace is wrong because the negotiations are just a political ploy and not actual negotiations. Ultimately this is coming to where it always does, you won't budge, neither will the other side. So it's really no use to keep debating this particular point. As for being a republican, I've stated many times before, i am a republican, just a moderate republican. I'm just not a big believer in most conspiracy theories and thus take the opposite side of that argument.

Astro, the problem with your analogy is that you know if you jump off a building, you won't fly. With Bush we have no idea what the actual outcome will be. So in one corner we have evidence from the leader of the U.S. forces in Iraq, in the other we have the New York Times, which as you did state, is about the most bias paper out there towards bush and the bush administration. As for the propaganda, I do agree with you, that it is a quite common tool. But the problem with propaganda, is that with little to no evidence that a statement is propaganda it is really hard to argue. Specifically when you are attempting to argue it with logic. Even statistically, if you look at it, at least 50% of military statements are non propaganda, I don't have a source for that but I will assume that to be true, so it would be difficult to argue that this is propaganda without some decent measure of evidence. You could possibly be quite correct in your !@#$%^&*umption Astro, that the U.S. is really not looking to negotiate and that it is all propaganda, but unfortunately Ace's !@#$%^&*umption that we are willing to negotiate his more founding than yours.

I will send a letter today.

False. How many times do I have to post this: Without a finite conclusion, neither of you can prove an argument without a doubt. Plain and simple. His inductive argument proves his statement very soundly. That is all Ace needs. If you are going to contradict his statement, you need to prove his statement false, as he's already proven his statement(s). Which you most certainly have not done. When I was in grad school was the teacher for 2 recitation blocks for 2 semesters in logic, it was the only way I could afford grad school. I still have many friends in the philosphy department at Syracuse University. If it would make you feel better I could have one of them notarize a statement, on school letterhead, I will upload it in PDF form, analyzing this argument. Also if you would like to direct me to some way I can contact whomever you have learned this logic from, be it a teacher, professor, or other, I will gladly have this debate with them. Ace has made his argument, which you have no evidence to contradict. As usual in an argument you try to advert the attention from you having to make a concise argument in or to invalidate your opponents. I have read the entire topic from start to finish and no where do you post a consise argument. Whenever you start to make an argument you bury it in a revolving paragraph that directs you away from the argument. Very similar to what Clinton does when she gets a question she doesn't want to answer. By saying that Iraq should take force against criminal elements or those acting outside the law (in this case insinuating Sadr) does not mean he isn't willing to negotiate with them. Until you have a statement from him saying he will not negotiate, or can outline a course of events showing that they have implicitly avoided negotiations, you are just specculating. And how come if I'm so terribly wrong, when I ask you to tell me why, you beat around the bush (no pun intended). Your inability to pose a concise argument and to show any fault in my statements just shows the lack of factual knowledge you have in the subject.

As with your lep, all one would have to do is merely walk into your yard to prove your statement true or false. Also you would need to add: If I say there is a lepercon in my yard, there is a lepercon in my yard. And could take out: You have no proof there isn't. With pet, you can't use deductive logic because there is no way to discern a definate conclusion until the event actually happens. Until you can discern a definate conclusion, you will always have a logical fallacy. In order for something to be logically true, it must be impossible to have all premises to be true with a false conclusion. Being we have no way to know the conclusion we cannot use deductive logic. So you must use inductive logic, for which Ace has a much better argument than Astro.

Show me where I am wrong. Also where are you doing anything besides specculating? If you give me proof that the Administration has contradicted one of the generals statements, while agreeing to it publically then i will add a little more validity to your argument. Until then, you have no argument. Cite that please. oh and Please state your argument, in a logic format with conclusion, using as many premises as you would like. I will ask that you do cite your premise sources too. You want a chance to defend your argument using logic, go right ahead.

So theoretically if we pollute our planet to the point that we need to find another planet to live, that should be an amazing stimulator for space technology. Once we developed the technology to colonize other planets, we wouldn't need to worry about pollution or natural resources because once we drained one planet we can simply move to another. Pollution ftw!

Actually it does. If you have no way to prove him false and he has evidence, no matter the scale, showing he is correct, then he is correct. From the little I've read your argument has no logic. Ace is basing his statement from the only statements made by the concerning bodies. You on the otherhand are doing what you've tried to do to me in many posts and take speculative ideas and p!@#$%^&* them off as solid arguments. And I do agree with Ace, being Petraeus is the leader of our armies in Iraq and is also en!@#$%^&*led to privileged information, that he can speak as to the United States intentions in Iraq. !@#$%^&* he is the man coordinating the US intentions in Iraq. Ace has a sound argument. You might need some lessons in logic as every argument based on something that cannot have a guaranteed outcome, is officially a logical fallacy. He does on the other hand have a very strong inductive argument, where as you have no inductive argument. Ace: Pet says U.S. willing to negotiate. (founded premise) U.S. has not contradicted Pet to date (publically) (founded premise) ther: U.S. is willing to negotiate. You: Pet says U.S. willing to negotiate (founded premise) U.S. has not contradicted Pet to date (publically) (founded premise) The U.S. actually contradicts Pet even though this has not been done before. (secretly and not to our knowledge) (unfounded premise) ther: U.S. is not willing to negotiate. It doesn't take a philosophy professor to see the error in your logic.

Directly from her website: So you must get health care, the government will help (medicare) if you don't want a public plan and the rich will pay for the poorer's health care. What the !@#$%^&* about that is not socialized? I mean call a spade a spade.

require everyone to obtain insurance How else do you describe that?

There are dozens of problems with socialized health care. I'll just point out a couple. Right now I pay for health care, but my company pays a majority of it. If health care was government funded, my company would no longer offer me health care, in fact most companies wouldn't. Now that health care is governmentally funded, they tell the doctors what to charge. So now your good doctors are going to keep their private practices for the rich people who can pay for it. We will, for the most part, get the doctors who simply aren't good enough to have their own private practice. Now that every American has health care and you can only go to the specific doctors that the government decides, if you have a problem with that old shoulder injury from high school it's going to take you a minimum of 2 months (if you're lucky) just to get in to see what could possibly be a second rate doctor. Heaven forbid you need to see a specialist. I have an Aunt who lives in Canada and when she has to go to the doctors she comes back to the U.S. because of how bad the health care in Canada is compared to the U.S. I will never vote for socialized anything.

"Following the use of DU weapons in Iraq and the Balkans, the World Health Organization (WHO) researched the impact on health and the environment. It concluded, as did a 2001 European Union enquiry into the Balkans conflict, that DU posed little threat. " As of now I'd say it's not going to become a controversy because there is very little evidence, besides coincidental, that American weapons containing DU are causing the problems. Now if further evidence comes out and shows that their is some substantial evidence that we caused this, that is a mess of trouble. I'm not saying it's not possible, but for now it's looking highly unlikely.